My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

Yes written evidence, that it what they do. He said they normally take instructions from solicitors but agreed to do it for me when I said I do not want to employ solicitor.

written evidence is fine to a point, but would they be willing to stand up in court and explain or justify what they have written in the report

hachette

Quote from RCVS letter as to why my complaint was closed.

"The decision to proceed with surgery would have been matter of clinical judgment,based on the presentation of Max and other information that was reasonably available to the veterinary surgeons.It is important to note that RCVS is not able to pursue complaint that relate to a possible error in clinical judgment unless they are of such severity that they amount to serious professional misconduct ,affecting fitness to practice. The case examiners considered that on the basis of the information provided, even if an error of clinical judgement occurred and negligence was proved, it would not be of such level to cross the threshold for serious misconduct"

So the fact that my dog has died due to her ignorance and error does not matter to RCVS.

marliepanda

hachette wrote: »

So the fact that my dog has died due to her ignorance and error does not matter to RCVS.

The quotation you copied does not say that.

They are saying it is not professional misconduct. Also note their use of 'possible' 'even if'

You'll get nowhere.

earthstorm

the vet practice would have presented in the RCVS investigation copies of your pets full medical records and then a report from the Vet and the team present during the last operation and then using the principle/guidelines the RCVS set out and vets must adhere too, then concluded their investigation and found no fault on the vets part.
This is what a judge would look at and not what others will say as anyone you bring in will only be able to advise on the info you give them. you could ask another vet 'what would you have done in this situation' but as they were not present at the time its just hearsay as they wont know if anything else come up during the operation.

lincroft1710

hachette wrote: »

Surgery, post mortem, cremation, solicitors advice ,cost of dog.

But you did not purchase the dog, you inherited him

hachette

lincroft1710 wrote: »

But you did not purchase the dog, you inherited him

Actually it was me who bought Maxie for my mum. I had relation ship with him right from the time I bought him for her as I used to see my mum who lived alone at least twice a week

thistledome

hachette wrote: »

So the fact that my dog has died due to her ignorance and error does not matter to RCVS.

Some of the comments on this thread are so needlessly callous. This is so sad

I understand why you're so intent on pursuing this OP. I'd be the same if it was my dog. Being your late Mum's dog will make the grief and the guilt even worse than normal. On top of that the Vet didn't have the decency to admit her mistake and the RCVS have done nothing but cause a delay of nearly a year. No wonder you can't let it lie.:mad:

Don't go to court unless you're sure you have an excellent legal case. Having a moral case or a just cause count for nothing in legal terms. The Law is not the same as Justice. Court cases generally benefit nobody but the lawyers.

If you do decide to go to court, I wish you good luck - you'll need it.

If you decide not to, I wonder have you ever thought about writing a short story about it for one of those magazines like Take a Break or even Your Dog? It might help you to get it all down on paper. You probably wouldn't be able to name the vet, but perhaps the feature writer here could give you some pointers? Just a thought.
http://www.yourdog.co.uk/contact-the-your-dog-team.html

I'm sorry you lost your dog in this horrible way. He must have been a very well-loved little dog. Bless him. Take it easy :A

earthstorm

Just imagine if everyone why had a pet die shorty have a operation claimed against vets.

1) Vets would go out of business
2) we would end up paying even more extortionate prices

The RCVS has ruled no wrongdoing so what would legal action achieve.

hachette

marliepanda wrote: »

The quotation you copied does not say that.

They are saying it is not professional misconduct. Also note their use of 'possible' 'even if'

You'll get nowhere.

Yes I do know what they saying. It is not professional misconduct but
what they are saying if it is negligence/error of judgment then it is not something they will deal with.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

Just imagine if everyone why had a pet die shorty have a operation claimed against vets.

1) Vets would go out of business
2) we would end up paying even more extortionate prices

The RCVS has ruled no wrongdoing so what would legal action achieve.

Maybe our pets would live longer.
Maybe the vets would take more care.

I say this again, I have paid £80 for Maxie's blood test to ensure everything is OK before his biopsy. Well his blood result was not OK it was ignored and he died. So what was all that was about. Why doing blood test in the first place if you are not going to investigate before you undertake life risking surgery?